SUKHWINDER SINGH Vs. DALJIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant - Sukhwinder Singh against the judgment and decree dated 10th February, 2012, passed by the Ld. District Judge, Sangrur, (in short 'Ld. Court below') vide which his petition filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the respondent/wife - Daljit Kaur was dismissed.

(2.) In his petition before the Ld. Court below, it was pleaded by the appellant-husband (petitioner therein) that he got married to respondent - Daljit Kaur on 12.03.1989 as per Sikh rites and ceremonies. The parties lived and cohabited together as husband and wife at Sangrur, wherein the marriage was duly consummated and two children, one son and one daughter were born out of the said wedlock. The respondent not only started pressurizing the appellant to live separately from his parents but she refused to perform her matrimonial duties as well. Further, it was alleged by the appellant-husband that the respondent-wife would often pick up quarrels and misbehave with both him and his parents to such an extent that she threatened to commit suicide many a times and implicate them in false criminal cases. As per the appellant, the respondent left the matrimonial home on 03.07.2004 along with all the valuables and without his consent. The appellant with a view to bring the respondent back into the conjugal fold made efforts through a Panchayat, but in vain. It was submitted in the petition that the respondent did not even care to come to see her ailing son, who was operated upon for some stomach problem.

(3.) Per contra, in her written statement, respondent-wife refuted and emphatically denied all the allegations of the appellant. Rather, she submitted that she resided with the appellant till May, 2008 and never shirked from performing her matrimonial duties including taking care of her ailing mother-in-law when the latter was hospitalized. She alleged that in fact, the appellant and his parents had been maltreating and physically assaulting her ever since her marriage. Many a times she was turned out of her matrimonial home with demands to bring more dowry from her parents. Respondent pleaded that it was in fact the appellant, who had abandoned her in May, 2008, at the house of her sister on the pretext of going to the house of her other sister at Sirhind. To her dismay, when the appellant did not return, the respondent went to her parental home and from there she reached her matrimonial home on her own, where, she was physically assaulted by the appellant and forced to leave the matrimonial home. Hence, it was, under these circumstances, she had been compelled to live in her parental home ever since then. It was also pleaded by her that she was still willing to live with the appellant, but it was the appellant himself who was not ready to keep her with him.